Case Study: Parks Canada Announcement of Wi-Fi in National Parks

A case study on the announcement of

Wi-Fi in National Parks AN ETHICAL BUSINESS

Ke l l y Ma r i o n COMM 4 7 0 A d v e r t i s i n g & P R Assignment One To m Wo r k m a n

INTRODUCTION In 2014, Parks Canada announced its intentions to install Wi-Fi hotspots at up to 50 of its national parks, with plans of tripling that number in subsequent years. At the time, they were asking for bids from Canadian companies to install the hotspots in areas where people already are — such as visitor centers and campgrounds — to enable guests to send a digital postcard home and to lure in younger generations.

This case study examines the unveiling of the agency’s plan to install the Wi-Fi hotspots, including the miscommunication of details, how they responded to backlash from the public, lessons learned, and how Parks Canada can move forward.

SITUATION Many people found that the concept of putting Wi-Fi into parks conflicted with the notion of “escaping to the woods” and “unplugging” in nature. The national parks act as a place of respite from the stimuli and digital distractions and frequenters felt as though they were being robbed of this through the installation of hotspots. There were many negative comments shared on social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter and, in some cases, the conversation got heated. The sentiment, “I go into these places to get away from technology”, was repeated across all platforms as park-goers worried that these pockets of solitude and freedom would soon no longer exist.

Fortunately, for Parks Canada, responses were not solely negative and there were many who supported the idea, seeing it as a way to share their adventures with friends and family (see “Public Commentary” for examples). They also received support from David Webb, editor and staff writer for Explore Magazine, who defended Parks Canada’s plan for Wi-Fi hotspots in an interview on CTV News (2014), opining that it was overblown and the news were misinterpreted and taken out of context.

“It will have a negligible effect on camping. There is a lot of wilderness in Canada that will never have Wi-Fi.” – David Webb, Explore Magazine

BRIEF COMPANY BACKGROUND Parks Canada was identified as a separate departmental corporation in 1998. It welcomes more than 20 million people annual to its places of heritage, which includes 44 national parks and approximately 306,700 square kilometres of Canada’s lands. Its mandate is to “protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada’s natural and cultural heritage, and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure the ecological and commemorative integrity of these places for present and future generations” (About Us, 2012). Parks Canada collaborates with a number of partners, including Aboriginal peoples, stakeholders, and neighbouring communities, in order to carry out its responsibilities.

GOAL OF PARKS CANADA

REASONING FOR WI-FI

There are many stakeholders in this situation, both internal and external, as well as wide — affecting or affected by the agency — and narrow — vital to the success of the agency (Workman, 2015c).

Internally this includes: Francois Duclos, Manager, Visitor Experience Infrastructures; Andrew Campbell, Director of Visitor Experience; Eric Magnan, Media Relations Officer; and Mr. Alan Latourelle, CEO.

Parks Canada needs to effectively communicate to followers what the intentions of the project are. This entails making it clear where Wi-Fi will be installed — there were some misconceptions — and what this means for the general public. It also needs to resolve any communication issues and respond to those who are upset about the announcement in a timely and tactful manner.

As Andrew Campbell, VP of External Relations and Visitor Experience at Parks Canada, explained, “People have a visceral feeling when they hear that it [Wi-Fi] is going to be on top of a mountain, which isn’t going to happen” (That, 2014).

“Hotspots will be installed where visitors already are, near visitor centres, not in the wilderness or in the backcountry.”

STAKEHOLDERS

Approximately 20 million people visit Parks Canada’s parks every year, but that number has been steadily decreasing over the years.

Parks Canada claims the decision to put Wi-Fi into national parks is an attempt to attract younger generations and to bring more urban people into nature. In order to increase visitation, the agency is adapting to the time, the digital age, and giving the people what they want. After all, it has been purported that “more people own a mobile phone on the planet than a toothbrush” (Hall, 2011). People want to connect with others and Parks Canada is trying to accommodate those wants. Apparenlty, the #1 question to its call center is, “Is there WiFi?” (That, 2014). Youth, in particular, have been the target audience for the campaign, which is why Parks Canada started a youth council to promote national parks, and why it took to social media to spread the news.

People who are able to work remotely may also benefit from the addition of Wi-Fi in national parks. Access to the Internet may enable them to work from abroad while getting out in nature by enabling them to send emails and take care of business from a distance. This project is a sign of the times and Parks Canada is making the best of it and adapting rather to it than ignoring it. Lastly, the change in infrastructure can make the parks safer. Parks Canada uses applications and social media to share information about trail closure due to weather, avalanche warnings, and bear and cougar sightings.

External stakeholders include the Government of Canada; the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat (AAS); Aboriginal Peoples and ethnocultural communities; national, regional, and local partners; WiFi bidders; the community (specifically visitors to national parks); and Ms. Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, and Minister for the Arctic Council.

OPERATION UNPLUGGED

Organizations must consider the impact of its actions on all stakeholders.

In 2012, Parks Canada partnered with GlassBOX Television, HLP+Partners, and Via Rail Canada to produce Operation Unplugged, which is, as it suggests, an “operation” about unplugging from technology.

The show featured eight young Canadians who were self-proclaimed technology obsessed Canadians, stripped them of all devices, and took them on an adventure through Canada’s national parks. Over the course of the journey, they competed in “missions” sans technology and learn how to live in nature as it was before the digital age. “Their ‘chat room’ is face-to-face at a campsite, their ‘tweets’ are recorded by hand in a personal journal, their ability to hide their emotions is removed and they confront each other and the camera with true feelings” (Operation Unplugged, 2015).

This was brought up in the backlash of tweets in response to Parks Canada’s announcement about Wi-Fi in national parks, as people criticized them for the hypocrisy of it all. Its recent actions were contradicting its apparent values and initial vision.

PUBLIC COMMENTARY ANALYSIS ON COMMUNICATION On April 28, 2014 Parks Canada announced its plan to imstall WiFi hotspots in national parks.

After backlash from the announcement quicklystarted flowing in, the agency took to social media to resolve the damage that was done. It used Facebook and Twitter, but not YouTube or Instagram, and was interviewed by CTV News to defend its decision and explain that the plan will not affect the backcountry.

On May 9, 2014 Parks Canada posted an “update on wireless (Wi-Fi) Internet access in our parks” on its Facebook account. This post received 331 likes, 116 shares, and 99 comments. In the long stream of comments of people voicing their opinion — both positive and negative — Parks Canada neglected to reply to even one person. From a public relations persepective, this was not the smartest idea or most straegic move.

Shortly after, Parks Canada posted an update on its website (Update on Wireless, 2014), though it was modified on November 6, 2014. This was shared through Facebook and Twitter, in an attempt to clear up the confusion over where the infrastructures would be built, while offering clarification on the proposed plans. In that note, it also detailed costs (included in service fees), its plan to install hotspots in stages, and briefly touched on why the agency decided to go this route. Parks Canada explained that it did not intend on compromising the experience of the visitors wishing to disconnect from everyday life as WiFi hostpots will not be available in the backcountry.

One would assume that the following weeks would be spent reaching out to disgruntled citizens, but, the truth is, Parks Canada did not. In fact, there were only five tweets sent out about the Wi-Fi plan that received minimal traction (less than 20 shares and likes). Of the many tweets it was mentioned in, often with people inquiring, the agency appeared to have responded to none. As mentioned, Parks Canada also wrote zero responses to those comments left on its original Facebook post.

GRUNIG’S SITUATIONAL THEORY Applying Grunig’s situational theory to this case allows an analysis on the public that will help us to better understand how to properly handle similar situations and remedy this problem. The audience here can be deemed an “aware public” as they recognize the problem and are seeking information, but have very little influence in the matter. They are not phsycially organizing to respond to the problem or starting an activist group to create change but, rather, individually commenting on Parks Canada’s posts and exprssing their opinion on social platforms.

The implications of an “aware public”, or a public in the formative stage, is that they have high problem recognition and equivalent constrant recognition, but a low level of involvement (Workman, 2015c). The audience does not necessarily care about the outcome or will see it through until the end, they just want to be informed, included in the conversation, and have perceived influence over the situation.

Grunig would delve into it further by labeling this type of communication as two-way asymmetrical.

Parks Canada should research the public and listen to their concerns to understand their public attitudes.

It should then use this knowledge to strategize communication practices and manage their messaging. By applying principle rhetoric skills using ethos, pathos, and logos, Parks Canada can persuade the public into believing that Wi-Fi in national parks is a positive addition to the current infrastructure. In turn, it will be able to remedy the situation by offering answers and a solution to the problem.

This tactic gives the illusion of mutual accommodation and compromise when, in reality, it is an unbalanced process (Workman, 2015c). The “aware public” comes out of the situation content, while Parks Canada comes out of it as the actual “winner”. This is not to say that Wi-Fi in national parks is a win-lose situation, as Parks Canada genuinely believes it to be a positive addition, it is simply stating that the power and control is back in the hands of the project initiators.

CONCLUSION Moving forward, Parks Canada should apply Grunig’s methods of public relations and crisis management to their communication practices with the public. Active, transparent communication will appease the public’s desire to be kept abreast on plans, while reviving and nurturing the relationship between the public and the agency. In addition, accountability for past mistakes — lack of clarity in messages and neglect to respond — will earn them back the respect they once had. These are integral steps in resolving the situation and moving forward harmoniously through the implementation of the Wi-Fi project.

REFERENCES About Us. (2012, December 19). Parks Canada. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/agen/index. aspx Armstrong, G., Cunningham, P., Kotler, P., & Mitchell, P. (2004). Marketing: An Introduction. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Hall, N. (2011, October 18). Are There REALLY More Mobile Phones Than Toothbrushes? 60 Second Marketer. Retrieved from http://60secondmarketer.com/blog/2011/10/18/more-mobile-phonesthan-toothbrushes/ Operation Unplugged. (2015, May 1). Parks Canada. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/APPS/CPNR/release_e.asp?bgid=1622&andor1=bg Rawlins, B. L. (2006, March). Prioritizing Stakeholders for Public Relations. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2006_Stakeholders_1. pdf That, C. T. (2014, April 29). Parks Canada Defends Wi-Fi Hotspots, Says They Won’t Be In ‘Back Country’. CTVNews.ca. Retrieved from www.ctvnews.ca/canada/parks-canada-defends-wi-fihotspots-says-they-won-t-be-in-back-country-1.1798605#ixzz30tdWdKYX Update on Wireless (Wi-Fi) Internet Access in our Parks. (2014, November 11). Parks Canada.

Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/agen/ne/index/wi-fi.aspx Workman, T. (2015, May 5). PR Theory. [PowerPoint slides]. Lecture conducted at Royal Roads University in Victoria, B.C. Workman, T. (2015b, May 21).What, Me Worry? [PowerPoint slides]. Lecture conducted at Royal Roads University in Victoria, B.C. Workman, T. (2015c, June 5). Who Really Matters. [PowerPoint slides]. Lecture conducted at Royal Roads University in Victoria, B.C.